They are public.
Evidence of meeting #55 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #55 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Dr. Rainer Engelhardt Assistant Deputy Minister, Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
They are published annually. There are annual reports coming out of CIPARS and the other one, CNISP, Canadian nosocomial infection surveillance program, as well as periodic reports coming out of those surveillance studies. They are available.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you.
As you well know, some folks testified about antibiotics and livestock on Tuesday. Dr. Prescott from the Canadian Animal Health Institute told us about a 2002 Health Canada report called, “Uses of Antimicrobials in Food Animals in Canada: Impact on Resistance and Human Health”. He testified that there were 38 recommendations coming from this report and the only major recommendation that was followed was CIPARS.
I am wondering why the other recommendations haven't been implemented.
4:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
I will talk to that, Mr. Chair.
I've looked back into that 2002 report and, as you say, there are 38 recommendations. The analysis that was just carried out of the implementation of those recommendations suggests that action has been taken on every one of them. Many of them have been fully implemented. Some of them are still ongoing activities. Others were not there for the federal government to implement, but there are outside agencies or organizations that are implementing them.
I'd be happy to give you some real details on that. There are 38 recommendations, so they would be a bit long to go through individually here, but I think you would find that much work has been done on implementing those recommendations.
4:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
I'd like to say that the Public Health Agency did well with its recommendations on CIPARS.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Great, thanks. If you could produce that for us, that would be great.
We also heard testimony, in particular from Dr. Prescott, and from others, that there are three agencies monitoring various aspects of antibiotics in livestock, such as, what kind of antibiotics can be used and what kind can't, how they're used, and what the appropriate guidelines are. The part we were missing was who is actually monitoring the impacts on human health.
We heard testimony that nobody is in charge, that only the resistant bacteria are in charge. I'd like to have a response about what is happening when it comes to monitoring the impacts on human health.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
I will start and then maybe Rainer could supplement my remarks.
Basically there is the animal interface. Health Canada sets the standards and CFIA does the inspections and monitoring, etc., and a system is in place for dealing with that.
Then, because the significant impacts are going to be in health care settings, which is the most effective indicator of what is happening out there, we have a system in place that does monitor those. In fact, there was at one point an antibiotic where we were starting to see resistance in human cases and it led to a change in policy.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
It was in terms of the use of that antibiotic.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
We have those systems in place. That is also supplemented by the regular kind of national reporting and the reference work that our laboratories do, which will pick up if something else goofy is going on.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Do you not have any concerns about antibiotic resistance due to antibiotic use in livestock?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
We have a huge concern about antibiotic resistance, whatever the cause. Actually, the appropriate use and much of the antibiotic resistance we're concerned about in humans is largely in terms of how we use antibiotics in humans, not in animals. It is the whole spectrum of the use of antibiotics that is of concern.
One of the key principles in medicine is to be the least intrusive and most effective with the fewest side effects. It doesn't matter what the intervention is, whether it's medication, surgery, or whatever. That's why there are the education programs. We have actually seen more appropriate use of antibiotics, both in agriculture and in health care. We still have a way to go, though, in terms of not using the most modern antibiotics for simple infections.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
What is Public Health Agency's position on the use of ceftiofur in livestock? Industry has repeated over and over that judicious use of all antibiotics, but in particular this antibiotic, is necessary. What does judicious use mean? We don't have any regulations.
What is Public Health Agency's position on the use of ceftiofur?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
I'm going to defer to Paul. We deal with the human side of it, but Health Canada does the research, assesses the research, and addresses that.
4:10 p.m.
Paul Glover Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, in response to the member's question and back to the point about who's responsible, the Public Health Agency does a surveillance. That surveillance is shared with Health Products and Food Branch, and the veterinary directorate considers that information and factors it into the risk assessment of all drugs. We put appropriate conditions on the label for the use of that drug. While there are numerous players, they collaborate quite closely and share information. When public health information has signals, that is shared with us as the regulator and that is factored into the regulatory decision we make.
With respect to the drug in question, we should clarify that the label is not tiny, such as a prescription label. It's quite extensive. We feel that the drug, when used as indicated on the label, is appropriate. It should not be used outside that label for extra label use. We have specific warnings on that. The label clearly indicates which species of livestock the drug can and should be used for and which indication. This should be used on a treatment basis, not on a preventive basis, and the types of species are clearly indicated on the label. Consistent with our assessment, if the operators follow those conditions, the drug can be used very safely.
March 10th, 2011 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll be splitting my time with Mrs. O'Neill-Gordon.
The minister was in Toronto and had a great announcement for the renewal of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. I was wondering if perhaps, Madam Yeates, you could discuss some of the good work being done with that partnership.
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to answer this very important question.
The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has been a real success story in Canada. There is often a question about whether there's a need for a pan-Canadian organization over and above the delivery that occurs in individual provinces and territories. In a sense the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has shown us what can happen when we do that function well.
The partnership has done a number of things. It's been doing seven large-scale initiatives to combat the common risk factors of cancer and other chronic diseases. I think there's often a worry that we'll look disease by disease, but I think the cancer partnership has been very clear that it is about some of the common risk factors for cancer and other diseases.
They've taken a collaborative approach. They've offered support for some individual provinces that may not have had colorectal screening programs, for example. They've been able to be a best practices or a sharing organization in that way.
A very important thing, and I speak here from some experience with the data information collection world, is cancer stage data has always been something we've striven to have in Canada. When you're trying to analyze cancer and what works and which interventions are most effective, understanding what stage a cancer is at is critical. It isn't data we've had collected before and that's because a fair bit of work has to be done on standardizing the format, standardizing the definitions. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has made major strides in this area, and I think this is going to be critical for the future.
They've done some very good public reporting work on cancer system performance. We always want to understand which practices perform best and how we are doing. They've had a pan-Canadian initiative on the management of pain and other symptoms for cancer patients, some very critical and fundamental issues that affect individual Canadians. I think at this point they're looking at some work on understanding the causes of cancer.
It's been a very successful partnership thus far.
